SolarCross wrote: An important milestone for the rights of homosexuals was the decriminalisation of sodomy that has occurred throughout the west in the last century. For example it was decriminalised in 1967 for England and Wales and in 1980 for Scotland.
I think if you were to rank the enemies of homosexuality, they would be:
1. Homosexuals: Homosexuals generally don't procreate, so their gene pool--other than any epigenetics of their siblings--don't pass on. So they are a genetically doomed group. As for behavior, their risky lifestyles are the worst enemy they have. It kills far more of them than any repressor, oppressor or otherwise.
2. Liberals: Liberals decriminalized sodomy. The timeline you mention is interesting, because it coincides rather perfectly with the explosion in sexually transmitted diseases. Over 35M people have died from HIV/AIDS alone in that time period. That's 5 times as many people as Hitler is credited with killing in his Final Solution. Although, assuming Hitler started his major killing in 1943, he's still worse than liberals on a rate-of-killing basis. However, nobody ever stops liberals from killing.
3. Islam: Islam is both a friend and an enemy. By forcing homosexuality into the closet, Muslim homosexuals haven't faced the death rate of homosexuals in the West. However, some have faced cruel punishments and death at the hands of Islam.
SolarCross wrote:To a great extent democracy is a numbers game yet homosexuals are not a huge voting block and for various reasons unlikely to get larger. Their few % could easily be overwhelmed by the fast increasing % of muslims, particularly given their birth rates and success in converting the prison populations of secular societies.
They will always be an outlier. That's why I say they are their own worst enemy on a long-term basis. On a near-term basis, liberals are their worst enemies, because liberals encourage hedonism that is the destruction of the homosexual's life.
noir wrote:In the 60's and the 70's Amsterdam was a focal point for gay culture. Today many gays there are complaing about Muslim harassment.
Again, this is further evidence that, other than homosexuals themselves, liberals are a homosexual's worst enemy. Liberals are the worst enemy many groups have.
SolarCross wrote:Do you not feel solidarity with European homosexuals?
I'm opposed to the modern variants of egalitarianism, so I can't say I feel solidarity with all people everywhere. I think liberals have rendered "equal" into something utterly meaningless.
mikema63 wrote:One would be signs of political repression of gays (as in Russia).
Yes, but repression of homosexuality has a protective effect in extending the lifespan of homosexuals.
Hong Wu wrote:The reasoning that white conservatives are supposedly a greater threat doesn't really support the conclusion that it's good for the long term prospects of some of these groups to bring in people to the right of the Christians, who have demonstrated less flexibility in these areas.
White conservatives reject the notion of extolling hedonism as a virtue, which seems to be a cornerstone of liberal thought these days.
The Sabbaticus wrote:Only days ago Tommy Robinson co-organized an 'Against Hate March' together with Sikhs, ex-muslims and gay rights groups opposed to sharia through Manchester.
The MSM didn't like it.
And they propagate the liberal ethos...
ingliz wrote:Most studies on hate crime offending have found that perpetrators generally tend to be young white men (Chakraborti et al., 2014, p. 56; Iganski and Smith 2011; Smithson et al., 2011; Williams and Tregidga, 2013, p. 46), supporting the assertion that hate crimes are most frequently committed by those from the majority groups.
Self-harm is a far greater problem for homosexuals than hate crimes as far as I can tell. Like problems in the black community, the LGBT community blames the society at large. Since there are far fewer homosexuals than heterosexuals, developing identity-based communities and finding mates is extraordinarily difficult for them, leading to alienation and depression that is a natural consequence of their nature. It's not like the effect of being the runt of the litter in other species.
SolarCross wrote:Why are you talking about race btw? Check the OP, this is about muslim attitudes towards homosexuals. Race is irrelevant.
It's marginally relevant in that LGBT groups are culturally marxist. That is to say, if they don't indentify as marxist, their group basically is politically powerless. Blacks have adopted a similar stance identity-wise. As I'm pointing out, if you want to get into lethality, homosexuals are their own worst enemies. The protective effects of repression were removed by liberals and they manufactured the notion that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals and should find a partner and get married--the failure to understand that marriage means heterosexual procreation notwithstanding.
ThirdTerm wrote:If you go to the most conservative areas of the Muslim world such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, you could get shot for being gay.
Except on "gay Thursday" as American veterans of Afghanistan will tell you. It seems a Thursday afternoon/evening circle jerk is a-okay, but any other day and you'd be hung.
minivanburen wrote:Multiculturalism does not actively radicalize Muslims who immigrate to Europe.
No. However, it does tolerate radicalization. It's not lawful for a white American conservative like Michael Savage to enter the UK, but it is fine for radical imams to do so. How do you think you would fare in a sharia court?
Rugoz wrote:- America gets to handpick its Muslims, mostly the educated elites, while Europe gets the "rabble".
Until Obama... He really had a thing for putting Muslim refugees into Middle America.
Oxymandias wrote:2. I hope you're joking. There's no proof that America gets richer Muslims than Europe and there's is proof that refugees do go to America from conflict zones. If they didn't, talks about refugees in America wouldn't even be a thing.
Pakistan has a lot of programmers. One time at work, I almost tripped over a Muslim in the break room, where he was bent over praying. I almost didn't see him. It's crazy stuff.
Atlantis wrote:Even though it is not officially sanctioned, everybody in Muslim countries knows that it takes place. Without the means of pre-marital sex and with marriage requiring sufficient economic means, many young males in the MENA have no other way of experiencing sexuality. Thus, to many it is more a means of convenience than an innate sexual orientation.
Right. It's gay Thursday or whatever. However, if you're married, have the means to be married, etc., and it's not Thursday, you're in heap big trouble I assume.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In the southern US, conservative bigots would be the biggest threat.
That's a liberal meme. It's more likely blacks. Blacks tend to be more violent and as a group they are anti-gay. If I were black, I could write a virulently anti-gay song, and that would be perfectly acceptable in the United States. If I did that as the white man that I am, I'd face ostracism. Media ignore epidemic of black on gay violence and murder.
Political Interest wrote:In the 1950s they were accusing homosexuals of being susceptible to communism and potential fifth columnists.
Uh... Bradley Manning anyone? ...
That was absolutely true then as now. If you don't and can't identify with the majority of the people in your country, betraying them is easy.
Political Interest wrote:Now they are trying to use homoesxuals as allies against the world of Islam.
Yes. Obama was flying the fag flag over US embassies in the Middle East. He taunted Russia that way too. I think as a foreign policy, it is a bridge too far.
skinster wrote:Your fear of gay men is sad. I heard it's common for homophobes to be homosexuals-in-denial. That is also sad, because it's okay to be gay, ZN. Nature is your friend.
This is reverse psychology. If true, it verifies my point: homosexuals are their own worst enemies. Am I to suppose crackers are blacks-in-denial?
Decky wrote:It means nothing, Oscar Wilde was married with kids.
Mild repression is good for the gene pool.
SolarCross wrote:It is fairly probable that the authors of the Torah and similar works were censuring sodomy because of its perceived public health risk, they wouldn't know about viruses and such but they could draw lines between dots where those who liked to get their bottom poked ended up with anal pustules later. The same could also be said of their injuctions against promiscuity, drinking alcohol, eating pork etc.
The liberals reject the likes of Richard Dawkins when it explains traditional homophobia, because the marxist narrative is more important than science to them.
SolarCross wrote:In black Somalia being homo is a death sentence, in white Netherlands it's practically a national past time.
In black America, it's often a death sentence too. Only, as I pointed out in the link above, black violence against homosexuals then becomes "conservative Christians." There is always an attempt to mislead.
SolarCross wrote:The pagan direction is to say, "nothing that is fun is without risk and you aren't going to live forever anyway so go for it". AKA "wine, women and song", "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, "live fast, die young". etc.
I'm not even sure that's fair to pagans. It's certainly fair to say about hedonists, and that is the core ideology of the modern liberal.
Decky wrote:I think Islam is the most homosexual religion of the them all, the whole thing about forcing the women into binbags and totally restricting the mixing of the two sexes pretty much confirms it.
That is a point of irony. Well stated.
However, notice that skinster runs to reverse psychology too. LGBTQ people seem to remain silent on people with sadistic and masochistic sexual tendencies. I find their embrace of everything but S&M a bit ironic too.